Halliburton's "price gouging"

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » December 31, 2003, 3:57 am

Just a note for this thread.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/30/sprj.n ... index.html
"Halliburton pulled from Iraqi oil contract"

miir · Post by **miir** » December 31, 2003, 4:49 am

How credible is a 'press release' from a company under investigation for 'scamming' millions of dollars?

OK, I admit I am no expert on logistics in the middle east, but a company would have to be incredibly STUPID to take oil from Turkey via truck THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A WARZONE. Surely, an alternate route would make more sense.

How does it take EIGHT TO FIFTEEN days to travel 800 miles across Iraq?
How much less hazardous would it be to transport the fuel via tanker through the Suez and around Saudi Arabia? I figure that trip would take less than 7 days.

As for your favoured 'news' sources, you ALWAYS quote 'conservative' opinion as if it were complete and factual. You toe the conservative line and lack the intellectual capacity to develop any of your own opinions.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 23, 2004, 1:54 pm

it wouldn't make much sense for them to purposely do this.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... urton_iraq

Ready to admit you were wrong and apologize?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 23, 2004, 2:52 pm

Sueven wrote:
it wouldn't make much sense for them to purposely do this.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... urton_iraq

Ready to admit you were wrong and apologize?

From CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/23/news/co ... tm?cnn=yes

Halliburton said the officials involved in the allegations "are no longer employed by the company" and "no senior officials were involved."

Is Halliburton coming forward voluntarily and telling the Pentagon about two non-senior employees who were accepting kickbacks and were promptly fired supposed to somehow justify all the demonizing of Halliburton being done?

That doesn't disprove anything I said regarding Halliburton as a company.

I think this part of the article you linked to is a little misleading:

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two employees of Halliburton subsidiary KBR accepted up to $6 million in kickbacks from the unnamed Kuwaiti firm

The WSJ didn't report that two employees of Halliburton accepted kickbacks- it reported that this week Hallliburton had come forward and told the Pentagon about two employees who had accepted kickbacks. I may be splitting hairs here but to me that was a bit misleading.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » January 23, 2004, 2:56 pm

Kwik-E-Mart Boss: Yes, but it's also company policy to blame such incidents on a scape goat or sacrificial lamb.

Apu: And if I can find for you these animals?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 23, 2004, 3:00 pm

brotha of course they are going to say no senior managment people knew about it.

but lets be real. We are talking about person sufficiently high up to negotiate gas purchase prices taking the kick back. That may not mean the board of trustees was in on the scam, but certainly sufficiently senior management people were. Agents of Halliburton were overcharging US taxpayers by a shitload. that is all that matters.

I think Ken Lay is still saying no senior management at Enron "knew anything" either.

i think these people were probably 'fall guys' for something that was known about at higher levels.

I mean how long have we been talking about inflated gas prices from the Kuwait supplier? i believe the story broke in July, and just now we are finding out why this overcharge exists?

hmmm....what's that smell? its called BULLSHIT

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » January 23, 2004, 3:03 pm

Voro nailed it down!

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 23, 2004, 4:43 pm

I think you (as usual) have some good points Voro, but I still don't think this justifies some kind of indictment of Halliburton as a whole. Halliburton has done a great job in Iraq and has come under a lot of criticism that it never deserved.

In the coming days and weeks there'll be a thorough investigation and I'm sure we'll learn just how high up this goes and who exactly it was. If this turns out to be anything more than a couple of greedy advisors trying to make a quick buck then I'll be the first one here pointing out how wrong I was about Halliburton, but from what I see right now Halliburton is doing the right thing and is once again coming under criticism it doesn't deserve.

Fizzlewhip · Post by **Fizzlewhip** » January 29, 2004, 1:01 pm

I saw this and just started chuckling.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » January 29, 2004, 4:15 pm

Truant wrote:I might bother to read it, and consider your point, if you weren't Brotha.

Hey Dumbass how many threads are you going to post to about not reading the content because of who posted?

Here is an idea genius Don't read ..... Don't respond fuck you are annoying.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 29, 2004, 5:37 pm

Atokal wrote:
Truant wrote:I might bother to read it, and consider your point, if you weren't Brotha.
Hey Dumbass how many threads are you going to post to about not reading the content because of who posted?

Here is an idea genius Don't read ..... Don't respond fuck you are annoying.

1) Brotha is a parrot.

2) Truant > You.

Truant · Post by **Truant** » January 29, 2004, 6:19 pm

Wow, it took you just over a month to come up with that.

Keep up the good work!